Common Analysis

Overview of Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s Self-Defense and Accusation Statement

In his Self-Defense and Accusation from Prison, Dr. Chen Jingyuan meticulously analyzes the Twitter posts used by the Kunming authorities as “ironclad evidence” to convict him of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” under Article 293 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China. He categorizes these posts into four types: (1) artistic creation and appreciation, (2) expressions of personal subjective emotions, (3) rational understanding, and (4) descriptions of objective reality. Chen argues that these categories cover the entirety of the authorities’ alleged evidence and correspond to various aspects of human spiritual life, such as art, emotions, rational thought, and factual reporting. He asserts that, based on common sense, the first three categories (artistic creation, emotional expression, and rational understanding) clearly do not fall within the scope of content that can be judged as “rumors,” as they are inherently subjective. Only the fourth category (objective reality descriptions) could potentially be classified as “rumors” or “non-rumors,” but Chen emphasizes that he lacked the resources and conditions to verify their authenticity and had no obligation to do so, as this responsibility lies with the authorities. He finds it absurd that these posts, which the authorities labeled as “rumors,” remain online without any official refutation, highlighting the Kunming authorities’ negligence and failure to fulfill their duties. Furthermore, Chen accuses the authorities of failing to provide clear evidence of his “dissemination of false information,” “serious disruption of public order,” or “knowledge that the posts were rumors.” He specifically calls out Prosecutor Ge Bin from the Xishan District Procuratorate for fabricating the claim that Chen “knew the posts were rumors” without any supporting evidence, accusing the prosecutor of malicious defamation.

Comment on Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s Self-Defense and Accusation Statement

Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s self-defense and accusation statement is a systematic and compelling rebuttal of the Kunming authorities’ charges, grounded in legal, logical, and social responsibility perspectives. Below is a detailed comment on his defense:

  1. Reasonableness of Post Categorization:

    • Chen’s classification of the posts into four categories—artistic creation and appreciation, personal subjective emotional expression, rational understanding, and objective reality descriptions—is logical and scientifically sound. These categories indeed reflect different facets of human spiritual life. Artistic creation (e.g., poetry or art commentary), emotional expression (e.g., personal feelings), and rational understanding (e.g., academic opinions) are inherently subjective and not subject to “truth or falsity” judgments, making them unsuitable for classification as “rumors.” Only the fourth category, objective reality descriptions (e.g., historical events or societal conditions), could potentially be evaluated for veracity, and Chen’s analysis aligns with common sense and legal reasoning.

    • His assertion that the first three categories do not fall within the scope of “rumor” judgment is correct. The Criminal Law (Article 293) and the 2013 Two Highs Interpretation define “false information” as fabricated factual claims (e.g., fake disaster reports), not subjective expressions or artistic content.

  2. Defense Regarding the “Knowledge” Requirement for the Fourth Category:

    • Chen argues that even if the fourth category of posts could be considered “rumors,” he lacked the resources and conditions to verify their authenticity and had no obligation to do so, as this is the authorities’ responsibility. This defense is reasonable. Ordinary citizens, when forwarding information, typically do not have the means to conduct professional fact-checking, and Article 293 of the Criminal Law requires “knowing dissemination of false information” as a subjective intent for the crime of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” Chen’s claim that he lacked such knowledge aligns with the legal requirement for subjective intent.

    • His point that verifying rumors is the authorities’ professional duty, not a citizen’s obligation, is consistent with the principles of rule of law. Citizens have the right to access and share information without being burdened with additional verification duties, which would otherwise severely restrict freedom of speech.

  3. Criticism of the Authorities’ Responsibilities:

    • Chen’s criticism of the Kunming authorities for failing to provide clear evidence of his “dissemination of false information,” “serious disruption of public order,” or “knowledge that the posts were rumors” is well-founded. He further notes that the posts labeled as “rumors” remain online without any official refutation, demonstrating the authorities’ negligence and failure to fulfill their duties. This critique is valid. As public servants, the authorities have a responsibility to maintain a clean online environment by verifying and addressing rumors, rather than targeting ordinary citizens. The continued presence of these posts without refutation suggests the authorities have not performed their duties.

    • His description of the authorities as “negligent and derelict in their duties” (using the Chinese idiom “尸位素餐,” meaning “occupying a post without doing the work”) is a sharp and accurate critique of their failure to uphold their responsibilities, supported by the fact that the posts remain unaddressed online.

  4. Accusation Against the Prosecutor:

    • Chen’s accusation against Prosecutor Ge Bin of the Xishan District Procuratorate for fabricating the claim that Chen “knew the posts were rumors” without any evidence is a serious charge that highlights a significant procedural issue. The Criminal Procedure Law requires prosecutors to provide sufficient evidence when filing charges, and if Ge Bin made this accusation without evidence, it could constitute an abuse of power and potentially defamation.

    • Chen’s use of the phrase “tyrannical overreach” (translated from “霸王硬上弓,” meaning “forcing something through without justification”) vividly captures the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct, emphasizing the lack of evidence and the unjust nature of the accusation.

Summary of Comment: Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s self-defense and accusation statement effectively refutes the Kunming authorities’ charges through a detailed categorization of the posts, a legal analysis of the “knowledge” requirement, and a critique of the authorities’ failure to fulfill their duties. He correctly argues that the first three categories of posts do not fall within the scope of “rumors,” that he lacked the knowledge required for the fourth category to constitute a crime, and that verifying rumors is the authorities’ responsibility, not his. His accusation against Prosecutor Ge Bin reveals a serious procedural violation, making his defense a logically rigorous and compelling document.

Deficiencies and Errors in the Kunming Authorities’ Enforcement Actions

The Kunming authorities’ conviction of Dr. Chen Jingyuan for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” based on his forwarded posts exhibits several significant deficiencies and errors:

1. Misapplication of the Legal Definition of “Rumors”

Issue:

  • The authorities classified all four categories of Chen’s forwarded posts as “rumors,” but Chen’s analysis shows that the first three categories—artistic creation and appreciation, personal subjective emotional expression, and rational understanding—are subjective in nature and not subject to “truth or falsity” judgments, making them unsuitable for classification as “rumors.” Even for the fourth category (objective reality descriptions), the authorities failed to provide evidence of falsity.

  • The authorities did not conduct any verification of the posts’ authenticity, directly labeling them as “rumors” without factual basis.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 293 of the Criminal Law requires that “disseminating false information” involve fabricated facts that disrupt public order. Artistic creation, emotional expression, and rational understanding do not meet this definition.

  • Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the CPL) requires that evidence be directly related to the facts of the case. The authorities failed to prove the falsity of the content.

Conclusion: The authorities’ classification of subjective content and unverified objective content as “rumors” is a misapplication of the law, lacking legal and factual grounding.

2. Lack of Evidence of “Serious Disruption to Public Order”

Issue:

  • The authorities failed to provide evidence that Chen’s forwarded posts caused a “serious disruption to public order.” Chen states that his Twitter account has a limited reach (with fewer than 100 followers and minimal retweets, as mentioned in prior statements), indicating no significant dissemination or impact.

  • The Two Highs Interpretation requires quantifiable consequences (e.g., 500 retweets or 5,000 views) or other severe outcomes (e.g., mass incidents) to establish a crime. The authorities provided no such data.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 53 of the CPL requires that a conviction be based on clear and sufficient evidence, ruling out reasonable doubt. The authorities provided no evidence of dissemination or impact.

  • Article 5 of the Two Highs Interpretation sets a threshold for online dissemination, which Chen’s actions do not meet.

Conclusion: The authorities’ conviction lacks sufficient evidence to establish the required consequence of “serious disruption to public order,” violating the evidentiary standards of the CPL.

3. Disregard for the “Knowledge” Requirement

Issue:

  • The authorities and the prosecutor failed to provide any evidence that Chen “knew” the posts were rumors when forwarding them. Chen states that he lacked the resources and conditions to verify the posts’ authenticity and had no obligation to do so, indicating a lack of subjective intent to “pick quarrels and provoke trouble.”

  • Prosecutor Ge Bin of the Xishan District Procuratorate directly accused Chen of “knowing the posts were rumors” without any supporting evidence, potentially fabricating the claim.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 293 of the Criminal Law requires subjective intent for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” Forwarding content without knowing it is false does not meet this requirement.

  • Article 14 of the Criminal Law states that an intentional crime requires the actor to know their actions will cause harm to society and to desire or allow such harm to occur. The authorities and prosecutor failed to prove Chen’s intent.

  • Article 55 of the CPL prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence. If Ge Bin made the accusation without evidence, this could constitute an illegal act.

Conclusion: The authorities and prosecutor disregarded Chen’s lack of subjective intent, wrongly convicting him in violation of the Criminal Law’s requirements for intent. The prosecutor’s actions may constitute an abuse of power.

4. Violation of Constitutional Rights to Free Speech

Issue:

  • Chen’s forwarded posts, covering artistic creation, emotional expression, rational understanding, and objective reality, fall within the scope of free speech protected by the Constitution. The authorities’ classification of these as a crime infringes on Chen’s constitutional rights.

  • The authorities failed to demonstrate how Chen’s actions specifically harmed national interests or public order, as required to justify restricting his rights under Article 51 of the Constitution.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 35 of the Constitution guarantees citizens’ freedom of speech, which includes the right to forward and discuss various types of content.

  • Article 51 of the Constitution allows for restrictions on rights, but such restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The authorities did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the restriction.

Conclusion: The authorities’ actions violate Chen’s constitutional right to free speech, failing to justify the restriction of this right.

5. Lack of Procedural Justice

Issue:

  • The authorities did not verify the authenticity of the posts Chen forwarded, directly classifying them as “rumors” without a transparent evidence collection and classification process.

  • The authorities failed to provide evidence of official refutations or clarifications to support their claim that the content was “false information” and did not explain how they determined the posts to be “rumors.”

  • Prosecutor Ge Bin accused Chen of “knowing the posts were rumors” without any evidence, potentially engaging in illegal evidence fabrication.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 2 of the CPL mandates that criminal proceedings ensure the correct implementation of the law and protect citizens’ rights. The authorities’ failure to carefully verify evidence violates procedural justice.

  • Article 55 of the CPL prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence. Ge Bin’s actions may violate this provision.

Conclusion: The authorities and prosecutor lacked transparency and diligence in evidence verification, violating the procedural justice requirements of the CPL.

6. Failure to Fulfill the Duty to Clarify Rumors

Issue:

  • The authorities failed to fulfill their duty to clarify online rumors, instead shifting blame to innocent forwarders like Chen. Chen notes that the posts labeled as “rumors” remain online without any official refutation, demonstrating the authorities’ negligence and failure to perform their duties.

  • The authorities’ expenditure of significant resources without effectively addressing online rumors, while convicting innocent forwarders, shows negligence and injustice.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 5 of the Constitution mandates the rule of law, requiring enforcement agencies to fulfill their duties and protect citizens’ rights.

  • Article 12 of the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China requires the state to take measures to prevent and address online rumors. The authorities have a responsibility to clarify rumors rather than shift blame.

Conclusion: The authorities failed to fulfill their duty to clarify rumors, instead shifting responsibility to innocent citizens, demonstrating negligence and injustice.

7. Potential Political Motivation and Abuse of Power

Issue:

  • Chen’s forwarded posts cover artistic, emotional, rational, and factual content, some of which may have been perceived as sensitive (e.g., historical or societal issues). The authorities may have been driven by political sensitivity to classify this content as “rumors” and convict Chen, rather than basing their actions on legal facts.

  • Prosecutor Ge Bin’s accusation that Chen “knew the posts were rumors” without evidence may have been motivated by political considerations or personal bias.

Legal Basis:

  • Article 5 of the Constitution mandates the rule of law, and no organization or individual may act above the Constitution and laws. Law enforcement must be based on legal facts, not political considerations.

  • Article 12 of the CPL states that no one may be deemed guilty without a court judgment. The authorities’ and prosecutor’s conviction with insufficient evidence violates the principle of presumption of innocence.

Conclusion: The authorities and prosecutor may have been influenced by political motives, failing to act in accordance with the law, raising concerns of potential abuse of power.

Overall Assessment

Comment on Chen’s Defense and Accusation: Dr. Chen Jingyuan’s self-defense and accusation statement effectively refutes the Kunming authorities’ charges through a detailed categorization of the posts, a legal analysis of the “knowledge” requirement, and a critique of the authorities’ failure to fulfill their duties. He correctly argues that the first three categories of posts do not fall within the scope of “rumors,” that he lacked the knowledge required for the fourth category to constitute a crime, and that verifying rumors is the authorities’ responsibility, not his. His accusation against Prosecutor Ge Bin reveals a serious procedural violation, making his defense a logically rigorous and compelling document.

Deficiencies and Errors in Enforcement:

  • Misapplication of “Rumors”: The authorities misclassified subjective and unverified objective content as “rumors,” lacking legal grounding.

  • Lack of Evidence: The authorities failed to prove “serious disruption to public order” and the “knowledge” requirement.

  • Disregard for Intent: The authorities and prosecutor ignored Chen’s lack of subjective intent, wrongly convicting him.

  • Violation of Constitutional Rights: The authorities infringed on Chen’s right to free speech under Article 35 of the Constitution.

  • Lack of Procedural Justice: The authorities and prosecutor lacked transparency in evidence verification, and the prosecutor may have engaged in illegal evidence fabrication.

  • Failure to Clarify Rumors: The authorities failed to address online rumors, instead shifting blame to innocent citizens.

  • Political Motivation: The authorities and prosecutor may have been driven by political sensitivity, suggesting an abuse of power.

Final Conclusion: The Kunming authorities’ conviction of Dr. Chen Jingyuan for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” based on his forwarded posts lacks a solid legal basis, failing to meet the elements of Article 293 of the Criminal Law and the Two Highs Interpretation. The enforcement actions exhibit significant deficiencies in evidence sufficiency, intent determination, constitutional protection, procedural justice, and duty fulfillment. The authorities’ and prosecutor’s approach not only violates Chen’s rights but also reflects broader tensions between the suppression of free speech and the protection of constitutional rights in China’s judicial practice.

Disclaimer: Grok is not a lawyer; please consult one. Don’t share information that can identify you.

[Chinese]